Drich Wrote:It is considered Lost because no man has laid eyes on a single stone of that city for 3000 years.

It was lost, and now we found it. The word 'never' is pretty absolute.

Drich Wrote:Verse 7 God Speaks of One of these nations and refers to them as Nebuchadnezzar and refers to this whole nation in the first person singular. "He." This is consistant with everything that has been attributed to Babylon. So from 7 to verse 12 God is giving a description of what babylon will be responsiable for. we know this to be true because again Babylon is refered to as "he," or rather King Nebuchadnezzar. Everything from 7 to 12 did infact come to pass under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar.

I will grant that this could have reffered to additional armies besides Nebachenezzar's, but the damage Nebachenezzar is alleged to have done seems rather extensive for a failed attack...

Quote:(you/ how I picture you preaching from your faith dispite what the actual facts say.)

You obviously would not know a fact if it bit you on your fucking ass, moron.

God fucked up. Your bible is wrong. Tough shit for you.

(October 26, 2012 at 11:51 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

Drich Wrote:It is considered Lost because no man has laid eyes on a single stone of that city for 3000 years.

It was lost, and now we found it. The word 'never' is pretty absolute.

Drich Wrote:Verse 7 God Speaks of One of these nations and refers to them as Nebuchadnezzar and refers to this whole nation in the first person singular. "He." This is consistant with everything that has been attributed to Babylon. So from 7 to verse 12 God is giving a description of what babylon will be responsiable for. we know this to be true because again Babylon is refered to as "he," or rather King Nebuchadnezzar. Everything from 7 to 12 did infact come to pass under the leadership of Nebuchadnezzar.

I will grant that this could have reffered to additional armies besides Nebachenezzar's, but the damage Nebachenezzar is alleged to have done seems rather extensive for a failed attack...

Read the history of the city. The reason it was considered a failed attack was because the well to do and the lionshare of the wealth abandoned the mainland and retreated to the the fortified island port. Where they stayed under seige for many years being supplied by the sea.

The same thing happened to anyone who attacked this city until alexander the great's general who waged a battle on two fronts and finally took the fortified island.

---

(October 27, 2012 at 1:36 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:(you/ how I picture you preaching from your faith dispite what the actual facts say.)

You obviously would not know a fact if it bit you on your fucking ass, moron.

God fucked up. Your bible is wrong. Tough shit for you.

I've been wanting to use this emoticon since i signed on here and now have used it twice in the same Day! Thanks Minnie!!

Go fuck yourself and your fucking loser god.

You can post all the emoticons you like. You're still a shithead and Tyre is still there....right where it has always been.

I think we've come to a standstill. Either you can acknowledge that the tyre of old (the submerged one) has been found, as the prophecy stated it never would be, or you can deny it. That doesn't change the facts. You say it was 'lost' becasue it wasn't found for 3000+ years, but the bible used the word never, as in even 3000 years is not long enough.

(October 27, 2012 at 3:17 am)Darkstar Wrote: I think we've come to a standstill. Either you can acknowledge that the tyre of old (the submerged one) has been found, as the prophecy stated it never would be, or you can deny it. That doesn't change the facts. You say it was 'lost' becasue it wasn't found for 3000+ years, but the bible used the word never, as in even 3000 years is not long enough.

You are playing games with the word found I posted the Hebrew word and defination. You are taking a modern english defination and applying to a word that includes neuaunces that you have not accounted for.

Is this the only way you can win an arguement? What of the 'facts' you spoke of in my last thread, and how I was supposedly ignoring them??? Who is ignoring facts for the sake of his own faith about the status of a city that no one has literally seen for 3000 years?

Even if you honestly in your heart can not resolve whether or not Tyre has ever been found, you must admit that the rest of the prophesy is very specific and accurate.

Humanity did a more thorough job with Chernobyl than God did with Tyre.

Drich Wrote:Even if you are confused about who did what, it is still an absolute wonder and the details of where and what happen to the city are accurate.

How is that surprising? The where is obvious; where else could it be but the cityu itself. The fact that it was washed over is not so shocking that it must be a prophecy, as it was in an area where the possibility of this happeneing was very real. Now, if a desert city was put underwater, that would be a little more convincing.
Is this the only way you can win an arguement? What of the 'facts' you spoke of in my last thread, and how I was supposedly ignoring them??? Who is ignoring facts for the sake of his own faith about the status of a city that no one has literally seen for 3000 years?

Drich Wrote:Even if you honestly in your heart can not resolve whether or not Tyre has ever been found, you must admit that the rest of the prophesy is very specific and accurate.

I can resolve it. Tyre has been found. If you are going to redefine 'found' for your convenience, you are also going to have to redefine never, because doing something after 3000 is not never doing it. The prophecy strongly suggested that Nebuchadnezzar would lay waste to the city, ehich he did not do. It is possible to interpret part of the passage as saying that another nation could finish the job. Regardless of whether Nebuchadnezzar did as much damage as the bible claimed he would, the city had been found. Yes, it took 3000 years, but the bible said never found. If the city has been found, then even if the rest of the prophecy could be interpreted in a way that would allow it to line up with actual events, the bible, (i.e. god himself) was wrong on the note of it never being found, and therefore the bible is falliable.

Drich Wrote:[quote='Drich' pid='354572' dateline='1351369434']
You are playing games with the word found I posted the Hebrew word and defination. You are taking a modern english defination and applying to a word that includes neuaunces that you have not accounted for.

Five definitions, and only the last one could possibly be used to support your argument. Also, does bringing back artifacts count as 'gaining'? And what is secured? You mean like how secure Jeruselum was prophecized to be, before it got razed?

Quote:You are playing games with the word found I posted the Hebrew word and defination.

And you are playing games with reality, shithead. Tyre was never destroyed. (-1 for fucking god.) It has been repeatedly rebuilt (-2 for fucking god.) It was "found" by everyone who went there...including - had he existed - your boy jesus ( -3 for for fucking god.) And it never sank beneath the waves (-4 for fucking god.)

Why does god hire such a shitty lawyer like you? You simply do not know what the hell you are talking about.

(October 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Humanity did a more thorough job with Chernobyl than God did with Tyre.

Good point. no one named any other (seperate) cities Chernobyl after the first one was destroyed.

---

[quote='Darkstar' pid='354576' dateline='1351370129']

Quote:I can resolve it. Tyre has been found. If you are going to redefine 'found' for your convenience,

Actually no. The passage was orginally written in Hebrew. We Changed the hebrew word and translated into the word 'found' To give us a ball park understanding of the passage. Meaning in order for you to use the english word only and the english defination onto a hebrew passage mean YOU ARE CHANGING THE DEFINATION OF THE WORD, and subsequently the whole meaning of the passage to fit your arguement. (Straw man.)